Jay A

Lives in United States NY, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jay A: I really wonder how many who have commented here have ever shot with the Z7. I have owned many cameras over the past 55 years, including a Z7 for a week now. I can honestly say it may not be a perfect camera in some areas, but it's a very good, reliable, and responsive one. Plus, it produces the best images I've seen in a FF digital camera. Yes, the AF-C struggles in low light conditions (so do a lot of other cameras) but honestly, that's about my only real criticism of the camera. 2 card slots? To me, considering this a fault is laughable. Any pro worth his weight carries a second body to insure against failure. If you are a pro and don't do this, I suggest you do. If you're not a pro and consider 2 card slots a necessity, you're taking yourself too seriously. The camera is (finally) the size that a camera should be and not an oversized, bloated boat anchor. Give it a chance...or if you are a Sony fanboy just looking to troll this camera, chill. It's a great camera!

Well I must disagree. My wife owns a D850. I own the Z7. Not only is image quality at least equal, but when using the Z 24-70, it's better than the D850 with the 24-70 2.8. Whatsmore the Z7 does much better video.
Ya know, Otus lenses are way overpriced, and only MF which in 2018 is not state of the art. I guess they should be considered epic failures as well.
Have you ever actually shot with this camera that you are so quick to trash, or are you just trusting a bunch of bloggers to tell you what to think about it? Seems to me that most of us who have used the camera don't experience the problems most of these bloggers talk about.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2018 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: It's pretty amazing to me really;
Sony has owned the mirrorless world for a few years now. Yes, there's been Fuji and some micro 4/3 stuff but basically its been Sony who has shaken both Nikon and Canon especially. Before the A7, Sony was pretty much a trivia question in the camera world.
Now that Nikon and Canon have entered the frey, what am I seeing? An endless barrage of "epic fail" and "passing on this stinker" type comments.
Sorry to bring this up but honestly? This really smacks of a camera manufacturer starting to do a little bit of its own shaking for a change. Don't worry Sony, you're not a trivia question. You do make some decent TV sets.

Oh and btw, having owned the A7Rii, I can honestly say that the Z7 IBIS is FAR superior to the IBIS in that Sony. As a matter of fact I used to keep the IBIS off when using the Sony because it was so unreliable. I guess that makes the Sony A7Rii an epic fail doesn't it!
And then there was Sony flash, still in use with the A7Riii. Completely amateurish system using the worst flash shoe in the industry. I suppose the A7Riii must be considered an epic fail as well.
And one more thing. I never said Sony, Canon or Fuji were subsidizing anyone or anything.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2018 at 17:42 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: It's pretty amazing to me really;
Sony has owned the mirrorless world for a few years now. Yes, there's been Fuji and some micro 4/3 stuff but basically its been Sony who has shaken both Nikon and Canon especially. Before the A7, Sony was pretty much a trivia question in the camera world.
Now that Nikon and Canon have entered the frey, what am I seeing? An endless barrage of "epic fail" and "passing on this stinker" type comments.
Sorry to bring this up but honestly? This really smacks of a camera manufacturer starting to do a little bit of its own shaking for a change. Don't worry Sony, you're not a trivia question. You do make some decent TV sets.

After seeing an awful lot of bashing in several internet forums, not just DPR, from people who have never shot with the Z7, I am not sure how you can say with any degree of authority "... that the comments you find objectionable, come without any subsidy from Sony, Fuji, or Canon." How on earth would you know even which comments I am referring to, no less know who they are coming from and what their motivation is? Actually, I am starting to also see a lot of comments from people who HAVE shot with the camera saying the same kind of thing that I am saying, that those who actually have shot with it, think it's a pretty good camera and that the criticisms of it are blown way out of proportion. I STILL can't get over calling a camera an "epic fail" because it has only one card slot. Or because it is not as good as the D850 in low light shooting. You know what? It does video far better than the D850. Does that make the D850 an epic fail?

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2018 at 17:30 UTC

It's pretty amazing to me really;
Sony has owned the mirrorless world for a few years now. Yes, there's been Fuji and some micro 4/3 stuff but basically its been Sony who has shaken both Nikon and Canon especially. Before the A7, Sony was pretty much a trivia question in the camera world.
Now that Nikon and Canon have entered the frey, what am I seeing? An endless barrage of "epic fail" and "passing on this stinker" type comments.
Sorry to bring this up but honestly? This really smacks of a camera manufacturer starting to do a little bit of its own shaking for a change. Don't worry Sony, you're not a trivia question. You do make some decent TV sets.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 21:52 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

LookintotheMirrorlessoften: There is one way to improve the Z7: lowering the price to 2500$
All there Fanboys are delusional to defend this thing.

To those of you claiming that I am "delusional," have you actually shot with a Z7? Well, I have shot with Sonys, I have shot with Canons, I have shot with Leicas, I have shot with Fujis, I have shot with Hasselblads. I can honestly say that yes the Z7 has some minor growing pains to go through, but you know what? It produces about the best images of any camera I have ever shot with, with the possible exception of the Hasselblad X1D. Try one sometime before calling those who like it "delusional."

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: I really wonder how many who have commented here have ever shot with the Z7. I have owned many cameras over the past 55 years, including a Z7 for a week now. I can honestly say it may not be a perfect camera in some areas, but it's a very good, reliable, and responsive one. Plus, it produces the best images I've seen in a FF digital camera. Yes, the AF-C struggles in low light conditions (so do a lot of other cameras) but honestly, that's about my only real criticism of the camera. 2 card slots? To me, considering this a fault is laughable. Any pro worth his weight carries a second body to insure against failure. If you are a pro and don't do this, I suggest you do. If you're not a pro and consider 2 card slots a necessity, you're taking yourself too seriously. The camera is (finally) the size that a camera should be and not an oversized, bloated boat anchor. Give it a chance...or if you are a Sony fanboy just looking to troll this camera, chill. It's a great camera!

I am not quite sure based on my own experience that I would want to design a camera using Sony as a template. I owned 2 A7Rii bodies and several lenses for about a year and a half and felt that it was an ok camera with some major faults. Quality control among lenses was pretty bad, its flash system amateurish, and its image quality while decent, was wanting. To me, a first generation camera with only one card slot and slow low light AF as its only major faults is not an epic fail regardless of whether or not that only means "I don't like it." If you're gonna fall for the marketing "reinvent mirrorless" BS, I am sorry. That said, in my opinion, it's not at all a half baked camera but rather one that probably produces the best images I have ever seen a digital camera produce.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2018 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: I really wonder how many who have commented here have ever shot with the Z7. I have owned many cameras over the past 55 years, including a Z7 for a week now. I can honestly say it may not be a perfect camera in some areas, but it's a very good, reliable, and responsive one. Plus, it produces the best images I've seen in a FF digital camera. Yes, the AF-C struggles in low light conditions (so do a lot of other cameras) but honestly, that's about my only real criticism of the camera. 2 card slots? To me, considering this a fault is laughable. Any pro worth his weight carries a second body to insure against failure. If you are a pro and don't do this, I suggest you do. If you're not a pro and consider 2 card slots a necessity, you're taking yourself too seriously. The camera is (finally) the size that a camera should be and not an oversized, bloated boat anchor. Give it a chance...or if you are a Sony fanboy just looking to troll this camera, chill. It's a great camera!

I don't disagree. But I have seen comments in various forums with phrases such as "epic fail" because of the single card slot. Same for the low light focusing. It would be nice if the Z7 had D500 focusing but it doesn't but it's a first generation camera. To call it an "epic fail" because of these things is pure trolling.
BTW, I am not so sure that the Z7 is such a high end camera that many are assuming. Most of its controls are more D750-like than D850i-like such as 1/200 flash sync, no flash outlet, square rather than round eyepiece, MC-DC2 release cable, etc. I predict a higher end camera will come within a year or 2.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2018 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: I really wonder how many who have commented here have ever shot with the Z7. I have owned many cameras over the past 55 years, including a Z7 for a week now. I can honestly say it may not be a perfect camera in some areas, but it's a very good, reliable, and responsive one. Plus, it produces the best images I've seen in a FF digital camera. Yes, the AF-C struggles in low light conditions (so do a lot of other cameras) but honestly, that's about my only real criticism of the camera. 2 card slots? To me, considering this a fault is laughable. Any pro worth his weight carries a second body to insure against failure. If you are a pro and don't do this, I suggest you do. If you're not a pro and consider 2 card slots a necessity, you're taking yourself too seriously. The camera is (finally) the size that a camera should be and not an oversized, bloated boat anchor. Give it a chance...or if you are a Sony fanboy just looking to troll this camera, chill. It's a great camera!

That IS funny actually. I absolutely despise AF. The only reason I use it is because the manufacturers are producing absolutely horrendous focusing screens in cameras that make it sooo difficult to shoot manually. As far as dual slots go, again keep in mind that I am not suggesting using a second camera to duplicate what the main camera has shot. I am only suggesting a second camera to insure that the job is covered...that everything needed to be shot is shot and accounted for. I have seen so called pros shooting events with one camera and then complaining when something failed and after not being able to finish the job, they blame the camera manufacturer. Sorry but if you're a pro, you blame yourself. On the other hand I myself HAVE had some equipment failures on jobs but I never once failed to produce what I needed in order to satisfy the client. Of COURSE 2 slots are better than one but to some, the Z7 is a failure because it doesn't have that...come on!

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2018 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: I really wonder how many who have commented here have ever shot with the Z7. I have owned many cameras over the past 55 years, including a Z7 for a week now. I can honestly say it may not be a perfect camera in some areas, but it's a very good, reliable, and responsive one. Plus, it produces the best images I've seen in a FF digital camera. Yes, the AF-C struggles in low light conditions (so do a lot of other cameras) but honestly, that's about my only real criticism of the camera. 2 card slots? To me, considering this a fault is laughable. Any pro worth his weight carries a second body to insure against failure. If you are a pro and don't do this, I suggest you do. If you're not a pro and consider 2 card slots a necessity, you're taking yourself too seriously. The camera is (finally) the size that a camera should be and not an oversized, bloated boat anchor. Give it a chance...or if you are a Sony fanboy just looking to troll this camera, chill. It's a great camera!

Before digital, when we shot with something called film, which could also fail either in processing or otherwise, what did we do then? We as professionals carried a second and sometimes a third camera to insure that we were covered. I am not suggesting duplicating everything we shoot with a second camera, I am only suggesting using a second camera to cover what needs to be covered on an assignment. That way if a card does fail, we can still deliver to our client. BTW, the camera itself can fail too, not just the card. Why is this such a laughable suggestion? Frankly I doubt the seriousness of any so called pro who does not equip himself with a backup camera while on a job.
Btw, up until just a few years ago, no camera had a second card slot. What did you guys do then? Just accept the fact that you lost some images at times?

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2018 at 14:42 UTC

I really wonder how many who have commented here have ever shot with the Z7. I have owned many cameras over the past 55 years, including a Z7 for a week now. I can honestly say it may not be a perfect camera in some areas, but it's a very good, reliable, and responsive one. Plus, it produces the best images I've seen in a FF digital camera. Yes, the AF-C struggles in low light conditions (so do a lot of other cameras) but honestly, that's about my only real criticism of the camera. 2 card slots? To me, considering this a fault is laughable. Any pro worth his weight carries a second body to insure against failure. If you are a pro and don't do this, I suggest you do. If you're not a pro and consider 2 card slots a necessity, you're taking yourself too seriously. The camera is (finally) the size that a camera should be and not an oversized, bloated boat anchor. Give it a chance...or if you are a Sony fanboy just looking to troll this camera, chill. It's a great camera!

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2018 at 04:26 UTC as 49th comment | 18 replies

I guess if you buy a 3d printer, eventually you have to figure out some use for it.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 16:38 UTC as 108th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the new Leica M10-P (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

morinor: Who is going to say it? No...? Only one SD card, no IBIS, no eye detection, very low battery life at 210 CIPA for a product at such a price (more than the M10?!). They dropped even their red dot in order to not say from afar: "A Leica, a rich guy wasting his money". But if somebody tell me shoosh, I will tell him: "Sorry I can't hear you, you have a Leica".

I'd honestly say that about 90% of all the other stuff that other cameras give you that the Leicas do not, are no more essential to creating good photographs than say a superior camera bag might be.
What you get by spending as much money as you do on a leica is the best workmanship in the business, coupled with the very best lenses money can buy. As a bonus, I have seen some of the best image quality compared to other cameras I have used (and I've used quite a lot). Even my APS-C Leica CL produces better looking images than my old A7Rii was capable of.
If these are not important to you, then a Leica makes absolutely no sense and is a waste of money. If they ARE important to you, well....all I can say is you get what you pay for.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2018 at 16:20 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Leica M10-P (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

morinor: Who is going to say it? No...? Only one SD card, no IBIS, no eye detection, very low battery life at 210 CIPA for a product at such a price (more than the M10?!). They dropped even their red dot in order to not say from afar: "A Leica, a rich guy wasting his money". But if somebody tell me shoosh, I will tell him: "Sorry I can't hear you, you have a Leica".

Only 1 SD card -- Never used the second SD card in any camera I ever owned.
No IBIS - Only time I ever tried IBIS was in Sony A7Rii. It gave me inconsistent focus, so I turned it off.
No Eye detection - See "Only 1 SD card slot " above.
Very low battery life -- See Sony A7Rii above
"A Leica rich guy wasting his money" -- hardly rich at all but recently sold everything else I ever owned to fund an M10 and some lenses. Got tired of wasting money on toys meant to last a couple of years. Best decision I ever made.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2018 at 14:45 UTC

I actually don't get it. I can see a sales tax when purchasing from a store inside one's own state. After all, the store is using state and local facilities to run its business. But why on earth should my state profit from me buying something from another state?
What has my state done to earn a penny on the transaction?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 23:54 UTC as 76th comment | 4 replies
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

nickolas84: DPreview thanks for this article.

I have to point out though that sensor size has nothing to do with low light performance. If anything it is against it for the rest of the reasons mentioned here...
It is the aperture of the lens and the amount of light this lets through that is the critical parameter. The rest like sensor technology and post processing seem to be better on smaller sensors.
...and for a given aperture size*, the lenses themselves are smaller. Just compare the RX100 III-V lens to any APSC kit lens (that usually has smaller reach!)

*I refer to the actual or equivalent aperture, not the nominal F number.

"sensor size has nothing to do with low light performance"

I agree 100%. Unfortunately there are just too many bloggers around who would want you to think otherwise.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 17:19 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)

One thing that everyone seems to constantly miss is that no matter what size sensor you shoot with, the image is enlarged for viewing, sometimes very little, sometimes a lot. A full frame sensor does not need to be enlarged as much as an APS-C to get X sized print. I am sorry if not too many people see any difference but to a trained eye, an APS-C image does NOT look the same as a full frame one. The less you have to enlarge to achieve X sized final image, the more apparent depth to objects within the 2d photograph you retain. This was true during the film days, and it is still true today. Day by day, I compare APS-C to full frame images of the same subject matter. I can detect which is which almost 100% of the time. It's this apparent depth to objects (or lack thereof) that I see a difference in. It is subtle yes, but so is the difference in sound between a $2000 and a $200,000 stereo system (a decent analogy). Again, I am sorry if most people cannot see this, but it's there.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 17:02 UTC as 227th comment | 1 reply

Just what everyone needs.
I really wish I never got rid of my Motorola Startac. Best phone I ever owned.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 06:07 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
On article Sony 'striping': here's the fix (791 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay A: For the life of me, I don't see any striping in either the original nor in the fixed shot of the model's face above. They both look exactly the same and when I click back and forth between the two, nothing changes.
What am I missing?

OK I think I got it now...they are very thin vertical lines with no color. They almost look like scratches. Correct?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 15:56 UTC
On article Sony 'striping': here's the fix (791 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay A: For the life of me, I don't see any striping in either the original nor in the fixed shot of the model's face above. They both look exactly the same and when I click back and forth between the two, nothing changes.
What am I missing?

Ya know comments such as "a good monitor" or "make an eye exam appointment" etc, do nothing to help. My eyes are good, my monitor is excellent and I honestly see no difference between the two images. Perhaps, just maybe for some reason, my computer has a glitch or something whereby I am ONLY seeing the corrected image whether I click on original or fixed? Rather than being sarcastic and condescending how bout if someone points out just WHAT and WHERE I should be looking to see this??
Are the stripes vertical? Horizontal? Where on her face are they?
If I look VERY closely, I DO see some very thin vertical lines on her forehead, hardly able to be seen unless I almost bury my head against the monitor, but I see these in BOTH the original and fixed versions. At any rate, is THIS it?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 15:50 UTC
On article Sony 'striping': here's the fix (791 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay A: For the life of me, I don't see any striping in either the original nor in the fixed shot of the model's face above. They both look exactly the same and when I click back and forth between the two, nothing changes.
What am I missing?

Well I'm using a 27" iMac retina display, probably the best monitor I have ever used, so I doubt it's that. What exactly should I be looking at on her face? I honestly see nothing different between the two images, original and fixed.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 15:45 UTC
Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »